On a recent Today Show, the host was interviewing a woman who lost her home in a California mudslide. It was an tearful exchange, but according to this entry in Dave Cullen’s blog, the interviewer missed an opportunity to show empathy, instead of going after more information. Cullen says a journalist needs to be ready to put aside the list of prepared questions and to “show some meaningful emotion.” What kind of emotion does Cullen suggest? He recommends something like: “I wish I knew what to say.” He says this is a more human (and humane) response. Clearly it is, but is it the right one? When exploring trauma, should a journalist really set aside information-gathering when the tears start to flow, and provide soothing reassurance instead? How would you have handled this interview?

There’s a compelling article in the Ryerson Review of Journalism that asks questions we should all be trying to answer about why we as an unchallenged rule immediately decide not to cover a suicide — unless, of course, it’s a “public figure.”

Author Liam Casey says: “reporters have a duty to cover all aspects of life, including death.
Suicide avoidance is a throwback to journalism’s dark days, a time when
editors and news producers could choose to ignore unpleasant matters.
But the industry can no longer justify failing to cover a tragedy that
will affect so many people, in one way or another, at some time in their
lives.”Continue Reading Should the media cover suicides?

J-Source and ProjetJ are publications of the Canadian Journalism Project, a venture among post-secondary journalism schools and programs across Canada, led by Ryerson University, Université Laval and Carleton University and supported by a group of donors.